Tuter hasn’t figured that out yet. He’s still trying to balance this in terms of the votes he’ll need to stay Chief Judge.
This is the Broward Judiciary we’re talking about.
How do you think that Moron Ross stayed CJ so long besides nobody else wanting it ?

THIS JUDGE HAS MORE THAN $240,000.00 IN CASH IN BANK OF AMERICA EARNING VIRTUALLY NOTHING
HE OWE $19,729.11 ON A BMW WORTH $15,000.00
YOU ARE UNDERWATER ON THIS LOAN…
MAY I SUGGEST YOU PAY OFF THAT BMW TOMORROW!!!
ALSO, PAY OFF YOUR STUDENT LOAN
YOU HAVE THE CASH TO MORE THAN COVER
INVEST AT LEAST HALF IF NOT MORE OF THE REMAINDER

He’s thinking what most of them think: how to puff up the numbers so his friends don’t realize he got a super big pay raise to “serve” and so his enemies don’t realize how vulnerable he is at the polls.

I think I might spend the rest of my life doing what I could to pull the weeds in the judiciary’s overgrown garden. People often tell me indifference and callousness on the bench aren’t outliers, they’re the norm. But I don’t think I ever took it as personally as I did when I viewed the video taken April 15 in Merrilee Ehrlich’s courtroom.

In 1981, a federal grand jury indicted Judge Alcee L. Hastings, appointed to the federal district court in 1979, along with his friend William A. Borders, a Washington, D.C. lawyer. Hastings was charged with conspiracy and obstruction of justice for soliciting a $150,000 bribe in return for reducing the sentences of two mob-connected felons convicted in Hastings’ court. A year after Borders was convicted of conspiracy, the result of an FBI sting effort, Hastings’s case came before the criminal court. Despite Borders’ conviction, and the fact that Hastings had indeed reduced the sentences of the two felons, he was acquitted in a criminal court in 1983 and returned to his judicial post.

Subsequently, suspicions arose that Hastings had lied and falsified evidence during the trial in order to obtain an acquittal. A special committee of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals began a new probe into the Hastings case. The resulting three-year investigation ended with the panel concluding that Hastings did indeed commit perjury, tamper with evidence, and conspire to gain financially by accepting bribes. The panel recommended further action to the U.S. Judicial Conference, which, in turn, informed the House of Representatives on March 17, 1987, that Judge Alcee Hastings should be impeached and removed from office.

On August 3, 1988, following an investigation by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, the House of Representatives voted 413 to 3 to adopt H. Res. 499, approving 17 articles of impeachment against Hastings, the greatest number of articles in any impeachment proceeding to date. Charges included conspiracy, bribery, perjury, falsifying documents, thwarting a criminal investigation, and undermining the public confidence “in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” The Senate received the articles on August 9, 1988.

Following the precedent set in the 1986 Claiborne impeachment case, the Senate again chose to refer the matter to a special committee as authorized by impeachment rule XI. On March 16, 1989, the Senate rejected a motion by Hastings to dismiss the case, and adopted S. Res. 38, creating a 12-member trial committee to hear evidence and then report to the full Senate on contested and uncontested facts. The committee was not tasked with making a recommendation on guilt or innocence. Committee hearings continued from July 10, to August 3, 1989. Consisting of six Republicans and six Democrats, the committee heard evidence for and against Hastings, and took testimony from 55 witnesses, including Borders. The House managers presented convincing evidence that Hastings had, indeed, conspired with Borders to solicit the bribe. Hastings, who appeared in his own defense, objected to the use of the committee, insisting that the full Senate should be required to hear evidence. His motion failed. Hastings also insisted that the Senate trial amounted, in legal terms, to “double jeopardy” since he had already been acquitted in a court of law.

The trial committee presented its report on October 2, 1989. Sixteen days later, the trial began in the U.S. Senate, with prosecution and defense given two hours to summarize their cases. The Senate deliberated in closed session on October 19, 1989. The following day, the Senate voted on 11 of the 17 articles of impeachment, convicting Hastings, by the necessary two-thirds vote, on 8 articles (1-5, 7-9). On two articles (6, 17) the vote fell short of the required majority to convict. On article 11, the Senate voted 95 not guilty to 0 guilty. Having achieved the necessary majority vote to convict on 8 articles, the Senate’s president pro tempore (Robert C. Byrd) ordered Hastings removed from office. The Senate did not vote to disqualify him from holding future office.

Four years later, Hastings was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for the term beginning January 3, 1993. As a member of that body, on December 19, 1998, Hastings voted (on four articles of impeachment) against impeaching President William Jefferson Clinton.

Chronology
August 28, 1979 President Jimmy Carter appointed Alcee Hastings to the Florida federal bench, making him Florida’s first African-American federal judge.
February 4, 1983 Judge Hastings was acquitted in the criminal trial for perjury and bribery.
March 1983 A month after Hastings’ acquittal, two U.S. District Court judges filed a complaint against Hastings under the 1980 Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (PL 96-458), accusing the judge of fabricating his defense.
August 25, 1986 Hastings tried but failed to block federal judiciary from making a formal recommendation to Congress.
September 2, 1986 The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta voted to recommend impeachment to the House, despite the fact that Hastings was acquitted in his criminal trial.
September 3, 1986 Recommendation of Circuit Court forwarded to U.S. Judicial Conference.
January 16, 1987 Hastings petitioned Congress to terminate the judicial investigation and to repeal PL 96-458, which provided the legal basis for the investigation. The Senate referred the petition to the Judiciary Committee.
March 17, 1987
Subsequent investigation of Hastings’ actions led the panel of 11th Circuit Court judges to conclude that Hastings had lied during the trial and was guilty of perjury and bribery, and that he had fabricated his defense. The 27-judge panel certified that Hastings had “engaged in conduct which might constitute grounds for impeachment,” and recommended impeachment to the House of Representatives.

April 18, 1988 U.S. Supreme Court rejected Hastings attempt to invalidate the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act.
May 18, 1988 House Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice began investigating charges against Hastings.
July 7, 1988 House Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice voted 7 to 0 in favor of impeachment.
July 26, 1988 House Judiciary Committee voted 32 to 1 to approve 15 articles of impeachment, and approved 2 other articles by voice vote.
August 3, 1988 House of Representatives voted 413 to 3 to approve 17 articles of impeachment.
August 9, 1988 House of Representatives formally presented impeachment resolution to the Senate.
January 26, 1989 Senate Rules Committee heard arguments from House Managers and Hastings’ attorneys on how to conduct impeachment trial. Defense attorneys also asked that Hastings be allowed use of Senate funds in his defense.
March 15, 1989 Senate began impeachment proceedings. Hastings appeared before the Senate, asking that the articles be dismissed, claiming a second trial would amount to “double jeopardy.”
March 16, 1989 After a two-hour closed session, the Senate rejected Hastings’ motion for dismissal by 92 to 1 vote. (Senator Howard Metzenbaum later stated that he believed Hastings had already been tried and a further trial was not warranted and violated protections against “double jeopardy.”)
March 16, 1989 Senate passed S. Res. 38, creating a 12-member Senate Impeachment Trial Committee.
April 12-13, 1989 Senate Trial Committee deliberated in closed session.
May 18, 1989 Senate Trial Committee rejected Hastings’ request for Senate funding of his defense.
July 5, 1989 Judge Gerhard A. Gessell dismissed Hastings’ complaint that he would not receive fair trial unless the full Senate heard all evidence and testimony.
July 10, 1989 Senate Trial Committee began hearing evidence, a process that continued until August 3, 1989.
October 2, 1989 Senate Trial Committee presented its report to the Senate.
October 2, 1989 Senate Trial Committee presented its report to the Senate.
October 18, 1989 Case came before the full Senate. Hastings, on the Senate floor, spoke in his own defense.
October 19, 1989 Senate deliberated in closed session.
October 20, 1989 Senate voted on 11 articles of impeachment, convicting Hastings on 8 articles, with 2 articles falling short of the necessary two-thirds majority for conviction, and a third article receiving a 95 to 0 vote for not guilty. The president pro tempore of the Senate ordered Hastings removed from office.

Just another screeching dried up yenta Broward judge who hasn’t had a good bang in 30 years and feels better about herself when she’s just had hormone replacement therapy and can let it all out.
What she really needs is a nurse with a good stiff hose.

I would suggest Davis, Schiff and David Haimes (who is up for election…don’t try to fool the people with a last day filing) get off there asses and start working as they are all ripe for an opponent. The candidates are coming and you should all mount up your support and hope you have a better name for the judicial name game. I sure wouldn’t want to be a man in a judicial women’s world.

COUNTY HOW MANY BROWARD JUDGES HAVE OTHER JOBS
GOES TO SHOW UNEQUIVOCALLY HOW LITTLE THEY DO AS JUDGES FOR THE SALARIES THEY ARE PAID BY TAXPAYERS
STOP BROWARD MOONLIGHTING JUDGES
WRITE YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE

Does The JQC allow for Judges to accept visible retracted and nefariously filed fake police reports , not on record with any dept.), to fulfill prerequisites and gain jurisdictions of a non existent case?

Judge Coates went to Yale, how could he have not known that he can’t accept a counterfeit, and visible redacted, with the agency scribbled out as a real police report?
Why don’t they investigate/arrest the court contractor and the court clerk who forged and validated the form as authentic with a state seal.

These Judges under the guidance of the JQC are crooks.
They are engaged in R.I.C.O. activities.